Incidents Report 2012 CST

Antisemitic incidents
report 2012
Contents
3 7 9
Executive summary
Introduction Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2012

Contexts and patterns Trigger events Long-term trends
12

Incident categories
Extreme Violence Assault
Damage and Desecration to Jewish Property Threats Abusive Behaviour Literature
22 23 25 28 29 30

Discourse and motives Geographical locations and differences

Typology of incidents: mission, opportunistic or aggravated? Antisemitic or anti-Israel?
Information collection and suspicious behaviour Annual incident figures

20022012 Monthly incident figures, 20022012 Annual incident figures, full breakdown, 2012
Annual incident figures by category,
19 21

Antisemitic graffiti found in London, July 2012 Cover image: graffiti on pavement in area of London with large Jewish population, June 2012
Incident victims Incident offenders
The text and illustrations may only be reproduced with prior permission of Community Security Trust.
Copyright 2013 Community Security Trust
CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012
Executive summary
640 antisemitic incidents were recorded
by CST in 2012, a 5 per cent increase from the 608 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2011 and the third-highest annual total ever recorded by CST.1 The highest ever annual total recorded by CST was in 2009, when 929 antisemitic incidents were recorded.2 in Manchester and London, and a further 18 antisemitic incidents were reported to CST by Police in other parts of the UK. In total, Police forces provided reports of 179 antisemitic incidents, or 28 per cent of the total number of incidents recorded by CST. Three hundred and sixty-seven incidents, or 57 per cent, were reported directly to CST by the victims of, or witnesses to, antisemitic incidents, or by a friend or family member of an incident victim or witness. Sixty-eight incidents (11 per cent of the total) were reported by CST staff or volunteers, or by the security officers at Jewish buildings and organisations. Twelve antisemitic incidents were recorded by CST during 2012 on the basis of media reports. category of Abusive Behaviour and 6 were in the category of Threats.
Antisemitic incidents and the Jewish population
There were 69 violent antisemitic assaults

reported to CST in 2012, a fall of 27 per cent from the 95 violent assaults recorded in 2011. This is the third year in a row that the number of violent incidents has fallen and it is the lowest number of violent antisemitic assaults reported to CST since 2003, when 54 assaults were recorded.
The 640 antisemitic incidents recorded by

CST in 2012 include 100 anonymised incident reports provided by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as part of an incident data exchange programme introduced between CST and MPS in London in 2012. Removing these 100 extra incidents which had been reported to MPS but not directly to CST to give a like for like comparison with 2011, suggests an 11 per cent fall in real terms in the UK-wide antisemitic incident total in 2012.
169
Manchester incidents
The 69 violent antisemitic incidents included

two incidents categorised as Extreme Violence, meaning that it involved grievous bodily harm (GBH) or a threat to life. CST recorded two incidents of Extreme Violence in 2011, and none in 2010.
Manchester Jewish population
25,013
The two highest monthly totals during 2012

came in March and November, which saw 75 and 82 antisemitic incidents respectively. Both of these monthly totals included temporary spikes in recorded incidents caused by reactions to external events: the terrorist shooting at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school in Toulouse, France, in March; and the escalation of conflict in southern Israel and Gaza in November. However, the context and detail of the extra incidents recorded during these two spikes suggests they were driven by different phenomena: the March spike probably reflected a temporary increase in reporting rates from the UK Jewish community rather than an increase in the number of incidents taking place; whereas the spike in November appeared to show a genuine increase in the number of antisemitic incidents occurring.
The number of antisemitic incidents recorded

by CST in the Greater London area increased by 55 per cent, from 203 incidents in 2011 to 314 in 2012. This is mostly explained by improved reporting via the introduction of the CST/MPS incident exchange programme.
Violent antisemitic assaults made up

11 per cent of the total of 640 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2012, compared to 16 per cent of the overall total in 2011; 18 per cent in 2010; and 13 per cent in 2009. The proportion of incidents that were violent in 2012 is, at 11 per cent, the lowest proportion recorded by CST in over a decade. As the number of violent incidents reported during that period has fluctuated from year to year, the decrease in the proportion of the overall total made up by violent incidents may indicate a growing willingness of incident victims to report lesser types of antisemitic incidents, such as those involving verbal abuse or graffiti.
Hertfordshire incidents
27
21,345
Hertfordshire Jewish population
In Greater Manchester, where an incident

exchange programme has existed between CST and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) since 2011, the number of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST fell by 34 per cent, from 256 incidents in 2011 to 169 in 2012. There has been no obvious change in CSTs recording systems or patterns of reporting from the Jewish community in Greater Manchester during that period. This suggests that the fall in the number of recorded incidents represents a significant and welcome reduction in the number of antisemitic incidents taking place in the Greater Manchester area, and reverses the trend of steadily increasing incident totals in Greater Manchester over the past decade.
London incidents
314
148,602
1. CST has been recording antisemitic incident statistics since 1984. 2. The incident totals in this report may differ from those previously published by CST, due to the late reporting of incidents to CST by incident victims, witnesses or other sources, or the re-categorisation of incidents due to new information.
CST recorded 80 antisemitic incidents that

involved the use of internet-based social media in 2012, compared to just 12 in 2011. This reflects the growing relevance of social media as a place where Jews encounter antisemitism and the ease with which it can be reported from there directly to CST online, rather than being an absolute measure of the amount of antisemitism on social media platforms. Of the 80 antisemitic incidents of this type recorded in 2012, 74 were in the
Incidents of Damage and Desecration to

Jewish property fell by 17 per cent, from 64 incidents in 2011 to 53 incidents in 2012. This is the lowest number of incidents recorded by CST in this category since 2005, when 48 such incidents were recorded.
London Jewish population
There were 467 incidents of Abusive Behaviour

reported to CST in 2012, an increase of 13 per cent compared to the 412 antisemitic incidents of this type recorded in 2011 and the highest total since 2009, when 609 Population statistics are based on the Jewish population of England and Wales, from the 2011 Census
161 of the 640 antisemitic incidents

recorded by CST nationally came via the incident exchange programmes with Police
incidents were recorded in this category. This category includes verbal abuse, hate mail and antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property. The increase in the number of incidents in this category in 2012 was partly fuelled by the increase in the number of social media-based incidents reported to CST.
In 32 antisemitic incidents, the victims were

Jewish students, academics or other student bodies, an increase of 19 per cent from the 27 campus-related incidents recorded in 2011. Of the 32 incidents of this type recorded in 2012, 18 took place on campus, while there were 14 incidents which affected students, academics or student bodies off campus. One of the 18 incidents that took place on campus was in the category of Assault and 15 were in the category of Abusive Behaviour, of which 5 involved the use of social media.
There is no clear correlation between the

ethnicity of incident offenders and the antisemitic language they use; contemporary antisemitic incident offenders will select from a range of Jewish-related subjects, using, for example, insults related to the Holocaust or Israel, for language or imagery with which to abuse, insult or threaten their Jewish victims.
There were 39 incidents reported to CST in

the category of Threats, which includes direct threats to people or property rather than more general abuse. This is an increase of 30 per cent from the 30 such incidents reported to CST in 2011.
In addition to the 640 antisemitic incidents

recorded by CST in 2012, a further 547 reports of potential incidents were received by CST but not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents as there was no evidence of antisemitic motivation, targeting or content.
55 incidents targeted Jewish schools,

schoolchildren or teachers in 2012, compared to 54 incidents relating to schools and schoolchildren in 2011. Of the 55 incidents of this type recorded in 2012, 24 affected Jewish schoolchildren on their journeys to or from school; 18 took place at the premises of Jewish faith schools; and 13 involved Jewish children or teachers at non-faith schools.
Collection and Suspicious Behaviour at Jewish locations. These included 60 incidents of photography or videoing of Jewish buildings, while in 38 cases suspicious people tried to gain entry to Jewish premises. These types of incidents are not categorised as antisemitic by CST as it is often not possible to determine their motivation, and many are likely to have innocent explanations. However, identifying and preventing the potential hostile reconnaissance of Jewish buildings or other potential terrorist targets is an important part of reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks.
There were 12 incidents recorded in the

category of Literature in 2012, which covers mass-produced antisemitic mailings and emails rather than individual hate mail. This is a 71 per cent increase from the 7 incidents of this type recorded in 2011, an increase largely due to a cluster of 6 incidents perpetrated by a single offender across the course of the year.
In total, there were 1,187 incidents, including

antisemitic incidents and those of a non-antisemitic security-related nature, which required a response from CST staff and volunteers during 2012.
The 547 potential incidents reported to CST

that were not included in the annual total included 204 cases of potential Information
The most common single type of incident in

2012 involved verbal abuse randomly directed at visibly Jewish people in public. In 291 incidents, the victims were ordinary Jewish people, male or female, attacked or abused while going about their daily business in public places, compared to 300 such incidents in 2011. In 126 of these incidents, the victims were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing, school uniform or jewellery bearing Jewish symbols, compared to 170 such incidents in 2011.
There were 196 antisemitic incidents which

showed far right, anti-Israel or Islamist beliefs or motivations in 2012, making up 31 per cent of the overall total of 640 antisemitic incidents, compared to 176 incidents showing such ideas or motivations (29 per cent) in 2011. Of the 196 antisemitic incidents in 2012 showing ideological motivation or beliefs as well as antisemitism, 133 showed far right motivation or beliefs; 47 showed anti-Israel motivation or beliefs; and 16 showed Islamist motivation or beliefs.
1,187: Total number of potential antisemitic incidents reported to CST which required a response from CST staff and volunteers.
43 antisemitic incidents targeted synagogues,

and a further 41 incidents targeted synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers, compared to 46 and 38 incidents respectively in 2011.
CST received a physical description of the

incident offender in 169, or 26 per cent, of the 640 antisemitic incidents recorded during 2012. Of these, 86 offenders (51 per cent) were described as White North European; 3 offenders (2 per cent) were described as White South European; 10 offenders (6 per cent) were described as Black; 51 offenders (30 per cent) were described as South Asian; 1 offender (1 per cent) was described as East or South East Asian; and 18 offenders (11 per cent) were described as Arab or North African.
1,187
Antisemitic incidents
640
Incidents reported to CST in 2012
In 46 incidents, the victims were Jewish

community organisations, communal events, community leaders or other high-profile individuals, compared to 68 such incidents in 2011 and 92 incidents in 2010.
547
Nonantisemitic incidents
54 per cent of these reports were deemed antisemitic by CST.

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012 6
Introduction
The Community Security Trust
The Community Security Trust (CST) is a UK charity that advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of antisemitism, terrorism, policing and security. CST received charitable status in 1994 and is recognised by Government and the Police as a model of a minority-community security organisation. CST provides security advice and training for Jewish schools, synagogues and Jewish communal organisations and gives assistance to those bodies that are affected by antisemitism. CST also assists and supports individual members of the Jewish community who have been affected by antisemitism and antisemitic incidents. All this work is provided at no charge. An essential part of CSTs work involves representing the Jewish community to Police, legislative and policy-making bodies and providing people inside and outside the Jewish community with information to combat antisemitism.
Comment left under Jewish video on YouTube in June 2012
CST has recorded antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom since 1984.
Reporting of incidents
CST classifies as an antisemitic incident any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the act has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they are (or are believed to be) Jewish. Incidents can take several forms, including physical attacks on people or property, verbal or written abuse, or antisemitic leaflets and posters. CST does not include the general activities of antisemitic organisations in its statistics; nor does it include activities such as offensive placards or massed antisemitic chanting on political demonstrations. CST does not record as incidents antisemitic material that is permanently hosted on internet websites, but CST will record antisemitic comments reported to CST that have been posted on blogs or internet forums, or transmitted via social media, if they show evidence of antisemitic content, motivation or targeting. Examples of antisemitic expressions that fall outside this definition of an antisemitic incident can be found in CSTs Antisemitic Discourse reports, available on the CST website. Antisemitic incidents are reported to CST in a number of ways, most commonly by telephone, email, via the CST website, via CSTs social media platforms or by post. In recent years, supported by grants from the Ministry of Justice Victim and Witness General Fund (formerly run by the
Home Office), CST has conducted advertising campaigns to encourage incident reporting in areas of London and Manchester with significant Jewish communities. In 2011, a grant from the Ministry of Justice enabled CST to develop and launch an incident reporting facility for internet-enabled mobile phones. CST staff have also undergone specialist training from the Victim Support charity, in order to provide the best possible response to incident victims and witnesses who contact CST. Incidents can be reported to CST by the victim, a witness, or by someone acting on their behalf. In 2001, CST was accorded third-party reporting status by the Police, which allows CST to report antisemitic incidents to the Police and to act as a go-between for victims who are unable or unwilling to report to the Police directly. CST works closely with Police services and specialist units in monitoring and investigating antisemitic incidents. CST regularly exchanges anonymised antisemitic incident reports with Greater Manchester Police and the Metropolitan Police Service. Not all antisemitic incidents will be reported to CST, and therefore the true figures will be higher than those recorded. No adjustments have been made to the figures to account for this. It is likely that this non-reporting also varies from category to category; for instance, while most serious antisemitic assaults are probably reported to CST
and the Police, it is likely that the vast majority of cases of verbal abuse are not. All reports of incidents are investigated thoroughly before being included in CSTs incident statistics. If there is no evidence of antisemitic motivation, language or targeting in a particular incident, then it will not be included in the annual total. In 2012, CST received 547 reports of potential incidents that were rejected for this reason, and are not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents. These represent 46 per cent of the potential incidents reported to CST and mostly involved criminal damage to, or theft from, Jewish property; assaults on or theft from Jewish people; suspicious activity or potential information-gathering around Jewish locations; or anti-Israel activity which did not involve the use of antisemitic language or imagery and was directed at pro-Israel campaigners, rather than simply at Jewish people, buildings or organisations chosen at random. CST always prioritises the wishes and needs of incident victims, both individuals and the heads of Jewish organisations or communal buildings. In particular, CST treats the issue of victim confidentiality as a top priority. CST does not proactively publicise antisemitic incidents that are reported to it, and if an incident victim chooses to remain anonymous, or wishes there to be no publicity about an incident, CST will observe their wish whenever possible.
Graffiti saying Death 2 Jews outside a Jewish school in London, March 2012
Antisemitic incident totals, 20082012
Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2012

CST recorded 640 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2012, a 5 per cent increase from the 608 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST for 2011 and the third-highest annual total recorded since CST began recording antisemitic incident statistics in 1984.3 The highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded by CST in a single year is 929 incidents, recorded in 2009.
Contexts and patterns

Antisemitic incidents happen in a variety of contexts, with a wide range of offenders, victims and motives. These vary from year to year and from location to location. Changes in the numbers of incidents recorded by CST reflect changes to the way in which incidents are reported to CST, as well as changes in how, when and why they take place. As a result, the national headline picture can sometimes obscure these independent or localised patterns and trends. For example, the increase in the national total of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2012 masks two opposing trends in the two main centres of British Jewish life: a large increase in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in Greater London, and a similarly large decrease in the number of incidents recorded in Greater Manchester. Both of these changes affect the national total, but the explanations for them are different in each case. CST recorded 111 more antisemitic incidents in London in 2012 than in 2011, of which 100 were provided via a new incident data exchange programme established between CST and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in 2012. This programme establishes the systematic sharing of antisemitic incident reports between CST and MPS, so that both organisations have sight of incidents that had not otherwise been reported to them. The incident reports are fully anonymised to comply with data protection requirements. This new source of antisemitic incident reports for CST in 2012 explains most of the increase in the number of incidents recorded in London during the year, but it also had a significant impact on the national total. If the 100 antisemitic incidents provided to CST by MPS under this programme are removed from CSTs 2012 UK-wide total of 640 incidents to give a like for like comparison with CSTs 2011 UK-wide total of 608 incidents (when CST and MPS did not have this exchange programme in place) the comparative annual totals would suggest a fall of 11 per cent in real terms from 2011 to 2012.
3. This is a higher number than the 586 incidents cited in CSTs Antisemitic Incidents Report 2011, as it includes incidents reported to CST after the publication of that report, and reflects the re-categorisation of some incidents after publication due to the emergence of new information. Similar changes have also been made for previous years. As well as affecting the annual totals, these adjustments mean that some of the monthly, category and geographical totals for previous years cited in this report differ from previously published data.
In Greater Manchester, CST recorded a 34 per cent fall in antisemitic incidents, from 256 in 2011 to 169 in 2012. CST and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have had an incident data exchange programme in place throughout 2011 and 2012 and there have been no identifiable changes in CSTs incident recording systems in the city during that period; nor has there been any noticeable change in incident reporting rates to CST from any particular part of the Greater Manchester Jewish community. Consequently the incident totals for 2011 and 2012 in Manchester can be taken as a like for like comparison and strongly suggest a genuine and welcome fall in the number of antisemitic incidents taking place in the area. While any explanations for this fall are bound to be at least partly speculative, the decrease may suggest that work done by GMP, CST and the North West Crown Prosecution Service to encourage the reporting, investigation and prosecution of antisemitic hate crimes is starting to have an impact on the number of antisemitic incidents and hate crimes taking place. A more detailed breakdown of the numbers and types of antisemitic incidents recorded in Greater London, Greater Manchester and elsewhere in the UK can be found in the section Geographical locations and differences, p.23. In total, 161, or 25 per cent, of the antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2012 were not reported directly to CST, but were recorded by CST after being received via the incident exchange programmes with GMP and MPS (a further 17 incidents were reported to CST on an ad hoc basis from other Police forces, as part of our work with those forces). If the 161 incidents recorded via the GMP and MPS programmes are removed from the 2012 total to provide a comparison with 2010 the most recent year in which CST did not have these two Police incident exchange programmes in place the like for like comparison would suggest a real-terms decrease in the incident
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
546 929 645 608 640

events, often but not always related to Israel or the wider Middle East. The record high total in 2009 was triggered by antisemitic reactions in the UK to the conflict in Gaza that year between Israel and Hamas. The previous record high of 598 incidents, in 2006, reflected responses to the second Lebanon War in that year. Other past trigger events include the Iraq war in 2003; the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001; and the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. There were two spikes in incidents in 2012: one in March, which involved reactions to the terrorist shooting at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school in Toulouse, France; and one in November, which involved reactions to the escalation in fighting between Israel and Hamas in southern Israel and Gaza. These two spikes contributed to monthly totals of 75 and 82 incidents respectively for March and November, but the nature and spread of the antisemitic incidents recorded during each spike suggests that they were fuelled by very different types of reactions.
total of around 26 per cent from 2010 to 2012. Prior to the introduction of the incident exchange programmes, with GMP in 2011 and MPS in 2012, CST sometimes received information about individual incidents from local Police officers as part of our work with the Police, but this was not comprehensive nor systematic. Answering the questions of why antisemitic incidents take place, who carries them out and who suffers from them is not always straightforward. Sometimes the evidence of victims or witnesses concerning what may have been a shocking, traumatic and brief experience can be vague and disjointed. Many antisemitic incidents, particularly those that take place on social media or via graffiti in public places, do not have a specific victim and the offender is often unknown. The antisemitic incident reports provided to CST by Police forces are anonymised to comply with data protection requirements, but this often strips them of detail that would help to classify the victim and offender by age, gender and ethnic appearance. While allowing for all these caveats, it is still possible to extract some analysis from the details of the antisemitic incidents recorded by CST during 2012, and the picture they show is one of complexity. In short, there is no single profile of an antisemitic incident victim, nor of an antisemitic incident offender, nor is there a single explanation as to why antisemitic incidents take place. This is explained in more detail in the sections Incident victims, p.19; Incident offenders, p.21; and Discourse and motives, p.22.
In March, 26 of the 75 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST were recorded before the shooting on 19 March, and 49 were recorded after that date. However, none of the incidents recorded after 19 March made direct reference to the shooting in Toulouse, and only one involved the use of language which may have been an indirect reference to the shooting (in which an individual in an area of London with a large Jewish community was observed shouting in the street about shooting, and saying, Jews should stay indoors). The period after 19 March also saw an increase in the number of reports from members of the Jewish community Trigger events about suspicious behaviour near to Jewish locations. This suggests that the spike in recorded incidents The levels of antisemitic incidents in the UK often in March may reflect a greater motivation on the rise temporarily, or spike, in response to trigger
10
Incident categories
part of incident victims and witnesses to report antisemitic incidents during that period, possibly because the shootings generated a greater awareness of, or unease about, antisemitism, on the part of some British Jews. Consequently this spike in incidents is most likely to reflect reactions to an external event on the part of incident victims, rather than on the part of offenders. In contrast, the spike in recorded antisemitic incidents in November is most likely to reflect a genuine increase in antisemitic expressions as part of reactions in Britain to an external event. The eight days of fighting between Israel and Hamas, from 14 to 21 November, saw 47 antisemitic incidents reported to CST, more than triple the 13 incidents recorded during the same period in 2011. Fifteen incidents made explicit reference to the fighting and several others contained evidence of implicit reactions to it. Of the 82 antisemitic incidents recorded in November, 28 involved the use of social media. This partly reflects the role that social media can play as a tool for the immediate public expression of extreme reactions to events taking place elsewhere, and also that social media is an environment in which Jews can view antisemitic expressions for which they are not the intended audience, and which they may not previously have encountered. In this respect the growth of social media has facilitated the public expression of a new type of antisemitic incident which previously would have lacked a victim or a reporter; and simultaneously provides a new mechanism by which such antisemitism can be viewed and reported. Despite the correlation between trigger events overseas and antisemitic incident levels in the UK, it would be a mistake to assume that this alone explains why antisemitic incidents happen. There were 59 antisemitic incidents recorded during September, the month which included the Jewish New Year festival of Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Of the 59 antisemitic incidents recorded in the month, 19 almost a third occurred on the five days covered by these two festivals. This is partly explained by the increased numbers of visibly Jewish people on the streets during these days, as they walk to and from synagogue, and also by an increased CST and Police presence in Jewish communities, which in turn makes it easier for victims of antisemitism to report incidents. CST classifies antisemitic incidents by six distinct categories: Extreme Violence; Assault; Damage and Desecration of Property; Threats; Abusive Behaviour; Antisemitic Literature. The definitions of these categories, and examples of incidents recorded in each one during 2012, are given below.4
Extreme Violence violent incidents has fluctuated, with 114 in 2010, Long-term trends
The 2012 total of 640 antisemitic incidents is significantly higher than the annual totals recorded by CST a decade ago. There are a number of explanations for this. One which is suggested by the incident data collected by CST since 1984 is that it normally takes at least two years without any trigger events for antisemitic incident numbers recorded by CST to return to their pre-trigger levels. When trigger events have occurred more frequently, the successive spikes in antisemitic incident levels have led to a gradual, long-term increase in the baseline level of antisemitic incidents recorded in the UK, which is what occurred during the first decade of the twenty-first century. This factor is particularly noticeable in London, where incident totals correlate to the national totals more than anywhere else does. As well as this impact of repeated incident spikes over several years, the gradual increase in incident totals also reflects better awareness in the Jewish community of CSTs work, and a consequent improvement in the rates of reporting antisemitic incidents to CST by Jewish communities around the UK. It is also influenced by the introduction of new sources of antisemitic incident reporting, such as online incident reporting facilities and the incident exchange programmes with GMP and MPS. Therefore any comparison of current recorded antisemitic incident totals with those from a decade ago or more should be done with caution. Despite improvements in reporting, it is to be expected that antisemitic hate crime and hate incidents, like other forms of hate crime, are significantly under-reported. This is particularly the case where the victims are minors; where the incident is considered of lesser impact by the victim; and for incidents that take place on social media. Consequently the statistics contained in this report should be taken as being indicative of general trends, rather than absolute measures of the number of incidents that actually take place. Incidents of Extreme Violence include any attack potentially causing loss of life or grievous bodily harm (GBH). There were two incidents of Extreme Violence in 2012, compared with two in 2011 and none in 2010. The two incidents of Extreme Violence in 2012 involved the following: 124 in 2009, 88 in 2008, 117 in 2007, 114 in 2006, 81 in 2005 and 83 in 2004. The number of violent assaults also fell as a proportion of the overall total, from 16 per cent in 2011 to 11 per cent in 2012. The proportion of incidents in 2012 that were violent is, at 11 per cent, the lowest proportion recorded by CST in over a decade, and may indicate a growing willingness of incident victims over that period to report lesser types of antisemitic incidents such as those involving verbal abuse or graffiti and the emergence of new forms of non-violent incidents such as those that involve social media. Fifty-six of the 69 incidents of Assault or Extreme Violence recorded in 2012 were random attacks on Jewish people in public places, of which 31 targeted people who were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing. Ten targeted synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers. CST received a description of the gender of the victims in 55 of the incidents of Assault or Extreme Violence. Of these, the victims were male in 37 incidents; in 12 incidents they were female; and in 6 they were mixed couples or groups of males and females. CST received a description of the age of the victims in 37 of the incidents of Assault or Extreme Violence. Of these, the victims were adults in 20 incidents, in 15 incidents the victims were minors and in 2 incidents they were adults and minors together. CST received a description of the gender of the offenders in 39 of the incidents of Assault or Extreme Violence, of which 33 involved male offenders and 6 involved female offenders. CST received a description of the age of the offenders in 36 of the incidents of Assault or Extreme Violence. Of these, the offenders were adults in 15 incidents; in 20 incidents they were minors; and 1 incident involved adults and minors offending together. Fourteen of the incidents involved
Northern Ireland, March: A Jewish schoolboy

was the victim of antisemitic bullying after his class learnt about the Holocaust, resulting in an assault in which he was knocked to the floor and kicked in the head, leaving him unconscious.
Glasgow, May: A visibly Jewish couple in

Glasgow were punched by a South Asian man in the street, resulting in both requiring hospital treatment including 12 stitches for the husband. The man who had attacked them then pulled out a knife and shouted, Are you Jewish? at a non-Jewish passerby, who he then stabbed. The offender was arrested and has been detained under a Compulsion Order for mental illness.
Assault
Incidents of Assault include any physical attack against a person or people, which does not pose a threat to their life and is not GBH. CST recorded 67 incidents of Assault in 2012. By combining this with the 2 incidents of Extreme Violence, we can see the full range of physical attacks on Jews. This gives a total of 69 violent antisemitic assaults in 2012, a 27 per cent fall from the 95 violent antisemitic assaults (including both categories Assault and Extreme Violence) recorded by CST in 2011. The total of 69 violent antisemitic assaults reported to CST in 2012 is the lowest since 2003, when 54 assaults were recorded. However, since 2003 the number of
4. A more detailed explanation of the six antisemitic incident categories can be found in the CST leaflet Definitions of Antisemitic Incidents, available on the CST website: http://www.thecst. org.uk
11
12
objects, usually eggs, being thrown at visibly Jewish people from passing cars. Particular targets for this kind of incident are the strictly Orthodox communities in Salford and Bury in north Manchester, and in Golders Green and Hendon in north London. There were 11 assaults on Jewish schoolchildren or staff in 2012, 8 of which took place away from school premises. There were 2 assaults on Jewish students during 2012, one of which took place on campus. Incidents in the category of Assault in 2012 included:
into the bakery and punching one of the customers, knocking him into a glass counter which smashed. The victim required hospital treatment.
Damage and Desecration to Jewish Property

This category includes any physical attack directed against Jewish-owned property, or property that is perceived to be connected to Jews, which is not life-threatening. This includes the daubing of antisemitic slogans or symbols (such as swastikas) including fixing stickers and posters on Jewish property; and damage caused to property where it appears that the property has been specifically targeted because of its perceived Jewish connection, or where antisemitic expressions are made by the offender while causing the damage. There were 53 incidents of Damage and Desecration in 2012, a fall of 17 per cent from the 2011 figure of 64 incidents in this category. The 2012 total of 53 incidents is the third year in a row that the number of incidents recorded in this category has fallen, from a high of 89 incidents in 2009, and is the lowest total recorded in this category since 2005, when 48 antisemitic incidents of this type were recorded. Of the 53 incidents in 2012, 9 involved desecrations of, or damage to, synagogues and 17 affected the homes of Jewish people, or vehicles parked at their homes. There were 3 incidents in 2012 that involved damage to, or desecrations of, Jewish cemeteries. Incidents of Damage and Desecration in 2012 included:
was due to interference from the synagogue, which he believed housed telecommunications equipment connected to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.
Hertfordshire, July: A rabbi was on his way

home from synagogue when a car slowed down and the driver threw a penny at him, shouting, There you go.
Manchester, April: A Jewish man was

canvassing during the local elections when a group of youths shouted, You little Jew, you f**king Jew and damaged his vehicle.
London, August: A rabbi and a few other

Jewish people were outside a Jewish building in the early hours of the morning when four young men who were watching them shouted, Mazeltov, Hizbollah and Free Palestine. One of the young men then began throwing punches at the Jewish group.
Merseyside, April: Swastikas were scratched

into three gravestones in the Jewish section of a municipal cemetery.
London, March: A visibly Jewish man was

walking along a busy high street when an Arab man walking towards him shouted, Dirty Jew and threw a full drinks can at him, which hit him on the head.
Lancashire, May: A swastika was spray-painted

onto the external wall of a synagogue.
Birmingham, October: A group of Jewish

students were on a night out in the city centre when two South Asian men started asking one of the Jewish girls about her ethnicity. Upon discovering that she was Jewish, one of the men said that he hated Jews and the State of Israel and pushed the girl away. When she tried to speak to him again he slapped her across the face and neck.
London, June: The website of a Jewish charity

was hacked, and a swastika put up on its home page.
Manchester, May: A Jewish woman was

canvassing for the local elections when a group of three youths and an adult with a dog threw rocks and pieces of iron and shouted antisemitic verbal abuse at her.
Merseyside, July: A swastika was drawn on the

wall of a Jewish-owned house.
London, September: A Jewish man bought a

new car and left it outside his property. When he returned, a car window had been smashed and swastikas, Stars of David and F**king Jew had been drawn on the car.
Manchester, May: A group of Jewish boys

were walking home on the Jewish festival of Shavuot when a large group of South Asian male youths started to throw rocks at them. The youths then shouted, Jewish b*****ds and F**k you Jews before chasing the Jewish boys and assaulting them, resulting in one of the Jewish boys being punched repeatedly to the ground.
Manchester, October: A group of visibly Jewish

schoolboys were walking home when they were approached by a group of South Asian boys. The offenders started swearing at the Jewish boys, calling them f**king Jews, before they punched and kicked one of the boys and tried to steal his scooter.
Leeds, February: Two swastikas were drawn on

the door of a business that was named after its original Jewish owners.
Dorset, September: Death to Israel and a

crossed-out Star of David were painted in large letters on the fence of a synagogue overnight during the Jewish New Year festival of Rosh Hashanah.
London, July: A visibly Jewish man was

approached by four suspects, one of whom pushed the victims kippah (skullcap) off his head before punching him in the face several times and kicking him on the ground, leaving the victim with a small cut under his eye.
Cambridge, October: A Jewish student was

walking back to her room at night when she noticed seven male students ahead of her talking loudly about Jews and poking and pushing a young man who she believed to be Jewish. She tried to pass by the group quickly but one of them turned to her, called her a Jew and slapped her in the face.
London, March: Swastikas were drawn on

posters advertising the election campaign of a Jewish student at a London college.
London, March: A white man was seen to bang

on the door of a synagogue late at night and then, when nobody answered, went away and came back with some bacon which he spread on the synagogues main door. The man was identified by the Police as a local resident who, when arrested, admitted the offence and explained that his television was not working properly and he had become convinced that this
London, July: A small group of Jewish

customers were at a bakery in the early hours of the morning when one of a group of white males outside was heard to say, F**king Jews...I f**king hate the Jews, before running
Swastika scratched into a Jewish gravestone in
13
CST Antisemitic Merseyside, Incidents April 2012 Report 2012
14
Threats London, September: Two Jewish boys were

This category includes only direct antisemitic threats, whether verbal or written. There were 39 incidents reported to CST in the category of Threats in 2012, an increase of 30 per cent from the 30 incidents reported to CST in 2011. There were 32 antisemitic incidents recorded in this category in 2010 and 45 in 2009. Eleven of the 39 threats recorded in 2012 took place in public. Twenty-two involved verbal abuse: 6 were delivered by a phone call; 6 via social media; 5 by use of paper hate mail; 3 by text message; and 2 via email. Incidents in the category of Threats in 2012 included: walking down the street when a car pulled up beside them containing two white men, who called out, Oi you f**king Jews, were going to hunt you down.
white man with a young child in the passenger seat, wound down his window, shouted antisemitic abuse including f**king Jewish c**ts at them, wound his window back up and drove off.
Manchester, November: A visibly Jewish man

was getting into his car when a passing car slowed down and one of the South Asian occupants shouted, Hamas is going to kill you.
London, January: A video uploaded by a Jewish

youth group to YouTube led to antisemitic comments being left by users, including So when do we start killing Jews?
Abusive Behaviour
This category includes verbal and written antisemitic abuse. The verbal abuse can be face to face or via telephone or answerphone messages. The category also includes antisemitic emails, text messages, tweets and social media comments, as well as targeted antisemitic letters (that is, one-off letters aimed at and sent to a specific individual), irrespective of whether or not the recipient is Jewish. This is different from a mass mailing of antisemitic leaflets or other publications, which is dealt with by the separate Literature category. Antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property is also included in this category. There were 467 incidents of Abusive Behaviour reported to CST in 2012, an increase of 13 per cent compared to the 412 antisemitic incidents of this type recorded in 2011 and the highest total since 2009, when 609 incidents were recorded in this category. There were 391 incidents recorded in this category in 2010 and 317 in 2008. A total of 176 of the 467 incidents of Abusive Behaviour recorded in 2012 involved verbal abuse. Of the instances of written abuse, 74 took place on social media; 58 involved antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property; and there were 17 antisemitic emails reported to CST in this category. There were 12 cases of antisemitic paper hate mail and 5 antisemitic text messages. Incidents of Abusive Behaviour in 2012 included:
Manchester, January: A Manchester City fan

was heard to shout, You f**king Jew, f**k off you Jew, f**k off home you f**king Y*ds during their Premier League match against Tottenham Hotspur. The offender was arrested and found guilty of a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence, leading to an 800 fine, 300 compensation, 650 costs and a threeyear football banning order.
Letter sent to Israel-linked organisation in London, January 2012
London, April: A visibly Jewish man was

walking home from synagogue when he was approached by a Muslim man who asked him where he was born, and then said, You are Jewish arent you. Go back to Israel you filthy, dirty Jew. The Quran says we will kill all the Jews, inshallah, soon. Kill the Yahud. It will happen and it will happen soon. I should kill you myself. Go and tell Benjamin Netanyahu I want him dead and all the Jews. It is the will of the Muslims and it is stated in the Quran. You stole Palestinian land.
London, January: An Israel-linked organisation

received a typed letter that read, I see in the Guardian newspaper you are locking up Palestinian children You f**king Jewish c**ts Your [sic] going to get what you deserve You vile f**king race.
in an area of London with a large Jewish population. As one woman walked past him he said, Youre f**king Jewish, arent you?
Manchester, March: A car was seen driving

round an area with a large Jewish population and the occupants were shouting abuse at Jewish pedestrians, including You Jew, You f**king Jew, Kill all Jews, Youre all f**king b*****ds and Whats that f**king thing on your head?
London, January: Three youths shouted

Yahud and other verbal abuse at a Jewish man in the street.
Glasgow, August: A Jewish organisation

received a telephone call from a man who said he was a Muslim and were coming to kill you. A woman then came on the phone and asked if the victim wanted a kippah delivered covered in bacon. The victim could hear voices in the background shouting, Kill, kill, kill.
London, February: A man at a bus stop was

heard to shout, You killed the best man that ever lived, my best friend Jesus as well as other abusive language at a visibly Jewish man at the same bus stop.
London, March: A Jewish teacher in a non-faith

school found swastikas, an SS sign and Die Jews drawn on desks in his classroom.
Hertfordshire, September: Two Jewish

schoolboys boarded a bus and went to sit upstairs. There were two white males sitting near the back of the bus, one of whom called one of the Jewish schoolboys a f**king Jew and said, I hate f**king Jews, they really p**s me off. He then said to the boy, What are you looking at? Keep looking and Ill push your f**king head through the window.
London, March: A person living next door to

a synagogue set up a Wi-Fi network with the name Auschwitz fan club.
London, May: During a debate on Twitter about

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a South Asian female youth tweeted F**king hate Jews, F**k off you Jew and Keep your Jewish nose out of my business.
London, March: Death to Jews and a Star of

David were drawn on a tree outside a Jewish school.
London, May: A car drove past a Jewish school

and the occupants shouted Heil Hitler and F**king Jews while doing Nazi salutes.
London, January: A Jewish woman and her

son were waiting to cross the road at a zebra crossing when a car stopped and the driver, a
London, March: An Arab man was shouting

f**king Zionist c**ts at visibly Jewish people
Brighton, May: Graffiti saying Kill all n***ers
15
16
Total number of antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2012

39 Threats
and Jews, Kill a n***er and be happy and All n***ers and Jews have AIDS, and a drawing of a gallows hanging a Star of David, were found on the door of a public toilet.
London, September: A visibly Orthodox Jew

in a wheelchair wanted to get on a bus but the wheelchair access ramp on the bus malfunctioned, meaning that all the passengers had to get off. Some of the passengers got annoyed and started abusing the victim, calling him a f**king Jew in a wheelchair and Spazo Jew.
Literature
This category covers mass-produced antisemitic literature which is distributed in multiple quantities. This can involve a single mass mailing or repeated individual mailings, but it must involve the multiple use of the same piece of literature in order to fall into this category. This is different from one-off cases of hate mail targeted at individual people or organisations, which would come under the category of either Abusive Behaviour or Threats (depending on the hate mails content). The Literature category includes literature that is antisemitic in itself, irrespective of whether or not the recipient is Jewish, and cases where Jews are specifically targeted for malicious distribution, even if the material itself is not antisemitic. This would include, for instance, the mass mailing of neo-Nazi literature to Jewish organisations or homes, even if the literature did not mention Jews. This category also includes emails that are sent to groups of recipients. The statistics for the category of Literature give no indication of the extent of distribution. A single mass mailing of antisemitic literature is only counted as one incident, although it could involve material being sent to dozens of recipients. Thus the number of incidents reflects the number of offenders, rather than the number of victims. There were 12 incidents recorded in the category of Literature in 2012, an increase of 71 per cent from the 7 incidents of this type recorded in 2011. This increase was caused by the actions of a single offender who sent 6 antisemitic mass emails during the course of 2012. The number of incidents recorded in this category has declined markedly in recent years: there were 25 Literature incidents recorded in 2010, 62 in 2009 and 37 in 2008. While the 2009 total was abnormally high due to a series of hostile or abusive emails sent to one victim, probably by a single offender, there is a clear trend of a sharp decline in the number of incidents in this category, for which there is no obvious explanation. Three of the Literature incidents recorded in 2012 involved paper hate mail, and 9 were conveyed by email.
53 Damage
and Desecration
London, May: Graffiti saying Zionists control

the banking system was daubed on the side of a bank.
67 Assault 2 Extreme
Violence
London, May: A visibly Jewish man was walking

down the pavement when a car drove past and the occupants shouted Yiddo, Yiddo at him.
London, September: Graffiti reading Jews in

the morgue was daubed on a wall.
12 Literature 467 Abusive

Behaviour
Belfast, July: A visibly Jewish man was driving

when a male pedestrian gave a Nazi salute in his direction.
London, September: A visibly Jewish man was

cycling home when another cyclist slowed alongside him and called him a f**king Jewish c**t.
Manchester, July: Two men made antisemitic

comments on Twitter, including Jew hive, I want to back there and laugh/gass them [sic] and bomb the Jewish Telegraph too. The offenders were identified and arrested and the case was settled via a Restorative Justice process with the editor of the Jewish Telegraph, who wrote positively about his experience in the newspaper.
Liverpool, September: Some men in a car

made Nazi salutes towards congregants leaving synagogue.
Examples of Literature incidents in 2012 included:
London, April: An email was sent to several

Jewish and non-Jewish organisations that was titled Israeli Jock Drinks Christian Blood and referred to the true Satanic colours of the Khazar-Ashkenazi Jews of convenience, ZioNazi xenophobes, the Shylocks Gazette and the Masonic Zionist kikester lobby.
London, October: A Jewish student had a

debate with his lecturer about the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, which became heated. Afterwards the lecturer made offensive comments to the student, including You are just like all the Jews and You are an arrogant bunch.
London, July: A visibly Jewish man was walking

home from work when a middle-aged white man walking towards him called him a c**t. The victim said, Its not appropriate to call me a c**t, to which the offender replied, Its not appropriate that you are killing Palestinians.
London, April: An antisemitic email was sent

to a Jewish organisation and other recipients, which was titled Jewish Run Abortion Camps and claimed, Hitler was a pussy cat compared to the Jewish doctors running Abortion Camps in America and around the world!
London, November: An Israel-linked

organisation received an email that read, You Jews are racially inferior scum. The only thing that you are good at, it is bombing, maiming and killing innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. You Jews look like the racially inferior Neanderthals who were supposedly wiped out when modern, Cro-Magnon, man appeared.
Newcastle, August: A non-Jewish student who

wears a fedora hat was walking in Newcastle when a group of boys, who were approximately 10 years old, saw him and shouted, Smelly Jew, go back to your own country.
Hampshire, July: A British National Party

supporter was given an Anti-Social Behaviour Order for distributing racist and antisemitic leaflets that attacked the Tory Zionist establishment and Jew Jack Straw.
Gateshead, August: A South Asian man said

Sieg Heil, Jewish b*****ds and Jewish f**king b*****ds to a Jewish man, and did a Nazi salute. The victim managed to record some of the abuse on his mobile phone. The offender was arrested and pleaded guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence, for which he was fined.
London, November: A black male posted a

tweet on Twitter that read, Stamford Hill has this unbearable stench of jews man p*sses me off almost everytime. Ugly creatures.
Manchester, September: A heritage tour took

place that visited places of worship of various different religions. After the group had visited a synagogue, the administrator at the synagogue found that a leaflet advertising the Holocaust denial book Did Six Million Really Die? had been left by one of the visitors.
London, November: Antisemitic graffiti was

daubed on bus shelters on consecutive days, including All Jews should be shot and Why do we hate Jews.
17
18
Incident victims
The victims of antisemitic incidents come from the whole spectrum of the Jewish community: from strictly Orthodox to Liberal, Reform and secular Jews; from the largest Jewish communities of London and Manchester to small, isolated communities all over the United Kingdom; and from Jewish schoolchildren to Members of Parliament. The most common single type of incident involved verbal abuse randomly directed at visibly Jewish people in public. In 291 incidents, the victims were ordinary Jewish people, male or female, attacked or abused while going about their daily business in public places. In 126 of these, the victims were visibly Jewish, usually due to their religious or traditional clothing, school uniform or jewellery bearing Jewish symbols. Forty-three incidents targeted synagogue property and staff, compared to 46 in 2011, and a further 41 incidents targeted congregants on their way to or from prayers, compared to 38 in 2011. There were 46 incidents that targeted Jewish community organisations or communal leaders and high-profile individuals, compared to 68 in 2011, while 50 incidents happened at peoples private homes (57 in 2011). A total of 55 antisemitic incidents took place at schools or involved Jewish schoolchildren or teaching staff, compared to 54 in 2011. Of the 55 incidents of this type in 2012, 18 took place at Jewish schools, 13 at non-faith schools and 24 affected Jewish schoolchildren on their journeys to and from school. Eleven of the 55 schoolrelated incidents were in the categories of Extreme Violence or Assault, 8 of which took place away from school premises; 7 involved Damage and Desecration of Jewish property; 5 were in the category of Threats; and 32 were in the category of Abusive Behaviour. There were 32 antisemitic incidents in which the victims were Jewish students, academics or other student bodies, compared to 27 campus-related antisemitic incidents in 2011 and 44 in 2010. Of the 32 such incidents reported to CST in 2012, 18 took place on campus and 14 off campus. Two of the 32 incidents involving students, academics or student bodies were in the category of Assault, one of which took place on campus. Of the remaining 30 incidents, 27 were in the category of Abusive Behaviour, which includes verbal abuse and antisemitic graffiti; there were 2 campus-related incidents of Damage and Desecration of Jewish property; and there was one incident in the category of Threats. Seven of the antisemitic incidents that took place on campus involved verbal abuse and 5 involved the use of social media. Nine involved the use of language or imagery related to the Holocaust or the Nazi period, and 5 involved the use of language or imagery related to Israel and the Middle East. Two of the 18 on-campus antisemitic incidents occurred in the immediate context of student political activity. In 9 cases the offender was a student and in 2 cases the offender was a lecturer or tutor. The 18 on-campus incidents occurred across 13 different universities and colleges, with the highest numbers of antisemitic incidents at any one location being 4 at Nottingham University and 3 at University College London (UCL). Of the 14 off-campus incidents, 7 took place in London, 3 in Manchester, 2 in Birmingham, one in Newcastle upon Tyne and one at the National Union of Students annual conference. In 4 off-campus incidents the offender was a fellow student; 6 of the off-campus antisemitic incidents involved verbal abuse; and 5 involved the use of social media. CST received a description of the gender of the victim or victims in 375 (59 per cent) of the 640 antisemitic incidents reported to CST during 2012. Of these, the victims were male in 243 incidents (65 per cent of incidents where the victims gender was known), female in 96 incidents (26 per cent) and groups of males and females together in 36 incidents (10 per cent). CST received a description of the age of the victim or victims of 256 (40 per cent) of the 640 incidents recorded during 2012. Breaking this down into adults and minors (while acknowledging the difficulty in accurately categorising incident victims who may be merely described by witnesses as youths or teenagers) shows that 180 incident victims were adults (70 per cent of incidents where the victims age was known), 57 were minors (22 per cent) and in 19 cases (7 per cent) the victims were adults and minors together. Younger victims appeared to be more prone to violent antisemitism than their elders: minors were the victims of 15 incidents in the categories of Extreme Violence or Assault in 2012 (41 per cent of incidents where the victims age was accurately reported), and of 40 incidents in the categories of Abusive Behaviour or Threats (20 per cent). One explanation for this may be that younger victims are more likely to report assaults than adults are, but less likely to report verbal abuse; but there is no obvious reason why this should be the case.
Swastika placed on hacked website of Jewish charity in June 2012
Who and what is being targeted?
Jewish organisations and communal events Students and academics on and off campus
3 Cemeteries 12 High-profile public figures

34
32
Synagogues and their congregants
84 291
Random Jewish individuals in public
Schools, schoolchildren and teachers
55 50
Private homes
19 CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012 CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012 20
Incident offenders
Identifying the motives, age and ethnicity of the offenders in antisemitic incidents can be a difficult and imprecise task. Many antisemitic incidents involve public encounters where the antisemitic abuse may be generic, brief and sometimes non-verbal. In cases involving physical or verbal abuse, this identification depends on the evidence of victims of, and witnesses to, antisemitic incidents, and may rely on their interpretation of the offenders physical appearance, language or other indicators. Many incidents do not involve face-to-face contact between offender and victim, so it is not always possible to obtain a physical description of the offender. Social media platforms afford a level of anonymity to offenders, should they wish to hide their identity. As explained in the Contexts and patterns section of this report (p.9), the anonymised antisemitic incident reports provided to CST by Police forces are stripped of much of the detail of the offenders age, gender and ethnic appearance. The content of an antisemitic letter may reveal the motivation of the offender, but it would be a mistake to assume to know the ethnicity of a hate-mail sender on the basis of the discourse they employ. Bearing in mind all these limitations, a physical description of the offender was obtained in 169, or 26 per cent, of the 640 incidents recorded by CST in 2012.5 Of these, 86 offenders were described as White North European (51 per cent); 3 offenders were described as White South European (2 per cent); 10 offenders were described as Black (6 per cent); 51 offenders were described as South Asian (30 per cent); 1 offender was described as South East Asian (1 per cent); and 18 offenders were described as being Arab or North African (11 per cent). These figures partly reflect the fact that Britains Jewish communities tend to live in Gender relatively diverse urban areas, and that street crime offenders (where most antisemitic incidents take place) make up a younger, and consequently more diverse, demographic profile than the population as a whole. Events during the year also have an impact on the reported ethnicities of incident offenders: the proportion of offenders described to CST as other than White North European tends to rise slightly if a year includes a major trigger event related to Israel or the wider Middle East.
350 300 250 200 150 100 50
Discourse and motives

CST received a description of the gender of the offender or offenders in 306 (51 per cent) of the 640 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2012. Of these, the offenders were described as male in 243 incidents (79 per cent of incidents where the offenders gender was known), female in 51 incidents (17 per cent) and mixed groups of males and females in 12 incidents (4 per cent). These proportions did not vary significantly across different incident categories. CST also received a description of the approximate age of the offender or offenders in 233 of the 640 incidents reported during the year (36 per cent). Of these 233 incidents, and allowing for the same caveats as when attempting to analyse the ages of incident victims, the offenders were described as adults in 148 antisemitic incidents (64 per cent of incidents where the offenders age was estimated), minors in 82 incidents (35 per cent) and adults and minors together in just 3 incidents (1 per cent). Just as with the age profile of incident victims, younger antisemitic incident offenders are much more likely to be involved in violent incidents (albeit usually using relatively limited violence): minors were responsible for 56 per cent of the incidents recorded by CST in the categories of Extreme Violence or Assault in 2012 (where an age description of the offender was provided), but for only 30 per cent of the incidents in the categories of Abusive Behaviour or Threats, where an age description of the offender was obtained. Analysing the content of incidents can help to identify the motives of incident offenders, although the link between the discourse used in an incident and the motivation of the offender is not always obvious. For example, compare these two incidents: reported to CST in 2012 in which the offender used more than one type of discourse in this way. The specific language used is sometimes of secondary importance, compared to the desire to insult or abuse Jews. Rather than being limited to prejudice rooted in more traditional, far right beliefs, the antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2012 represent the multifaceted nature of contemporary antisemitism. In 176 of the 640 antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2012, the offenders employed discourse based on the Nazi period, including swastikas and references to the Holocaust. Of these, 134 showed evidence of far right motivation or beliefs. For comparison, in 2011, Nazi-related discourse was used by offenders in 135 antisemitic incidents, of which 101 showed evidence of far right motivation or beliefs. Discourse related to Israel or the Middle East was used in 70 antisemitic incidents in 2012 (compared to 84 in 2011), of which 47 showed evidence of anti-Israel motivation or beliefs (59 in 2011); and discourse relating to Islam or Muslims was present in 18 antisemitic incidents (15 in 2011), while 16 incidents showed evidence of Islamist motivation or beliefs (also 16 in 2011). Overall, there was an 11 per cent increase in the number of antisemitic incidents showing some degree of ideological motivation or belief, from 176 in 2011 to 196 in 2012, which may reflect the fact that 2012 contained a trigger event that was related to events in the Middle East, whereas 2011 did not. In all of these incidents, it was necessary for there to be evidence of antisemitic language, targeting or motivation as well as any political or ideological motivation for the incident to be recorded by CST as antisemitic. Very few of the incidents involving ideological motivation or beliefs contained evidence that the offender was a member of any particular extremist organisation, or that the incident was part of any wider organised extremist activity.
London, October: An email was sent to

an organisation involved in Holocaust commemoration that read, Those that died in Auschwitz, died of typhus! Is it not time you stopped the lies and propaganda? The truth is available to all now and then included a link to a Holocaust denial website.
Manchester, May: Two South Asian men

shouted F**king Jews, Heil Hitler and Sieg Heil at two visibly Orthodox Jewish men. In the first example, the content of the email, the link to a Holocaust denial website and the selection of a Holocaust-related victim all strongly suggest that the offender was motivated by far right beliefs. However, although the offenders in the second incident used neo-Nazi discourse, the fact that they were of South Asian appearance makes it very unlikely that they were motivated by far right ideology of that type. Although it is counter-intuitive that Black or South Asian people would display neo-Nazi language or behaviour for any reason, a third incident gives a clue as to how this paradox can occur:
5. CST uses the IC16 system, used by the UK Police services, for categorising the ethnic appearance of offenders. This uses the codes IC1, IC2, IC3, etc for White North European; White South European; Black; South Asian; East or South East Asian; and Arab or North African. This is obviously not a foolproof system and can only be used as a rough guide.
600 500 400 300 200 100
Who are the offenders?
London, May: A Jewish man found a voicemail

message on his home phone in which a woman said, A message from Hamas: die in Auschwitz, you Jewish b*****d. In this incident, the offender uses language relating to both the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it is not possible to determine whether either discourse indicates a particular ideological motivation. The offender in this particular incident is typical of contemporary antisemitic incident offenders, who will select from a range of Jewishrelated discourses for language or imagery with which to abuse, insult or threaten their Jewish victims. There were 30 antisemitic incidents
Offenders ages reported
233
Described as minors
82
Described as adults
148
Offenders were a group of adults and minors together
21
22
Geographical locations and differences

Three-quarters of the 640 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2012 took place in Greater London and Greater Manchester, the two largest Jewish communities in the UK. However, 2012 saw the reversal of a trend whereby the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in Greater Manchester, and the proportion of the national total that they comprised, had been rising steadily until in 2011 for the first time the number of incidents recorded in Greater Manchester (256) was larger than the number recorded in Greater London (203). In 2012, contrastingly, CST recorded 314 antisemitic incidents in Greater London, compared to 169 in Greater Manchester. As is explained in the Contexts and patterns section of this report (p.9), this is due to two contrasting trends in the two cities. In 2012, CST began the systematic exchange of antisemitic incident reports with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on a monthly basis, so that each organisation would have sight of incidents that had not otherwise been reported to them. The incident reports are fully anonymised, but sharing them means that both organisations have as full a picture as possible of the number of antisemitic incidents that take place, where and when they occur and, in general terms, the nature of each incident. This constituted a new source of incident reports for CST in 2012 that had not been available previously, and which contributed to an increase in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST. One hundred incidents were recorded by CST via this programme that had not been directly reported to the organisation, and although this does not make up the entirety of the increase from the 203 antisemitic incidents recorded in the capital in 2011 to the 314 recorded in 2012, it does explain most of it. The incident exchange programme in London is modelled on one that has run between CST and Greater Manchester Police since the beginning of 2011. This means that the 34 per cent fall in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in Greater Manchester from 2011 to 2012 is a true, like for like comparison, and, even allowing for the under-reporting that affects all hate crime statistics, suggests that the city has seen a genuine fall in the number of antisemitic incidents taking place. Within Greater London, the borough where the highest number of antisemitic incidents was recorded was Barnet, with 110 antisemitic incidents. This is normally the case: Barnet has the largest Jewish community of any local authority in the country. There were 29 antisemitic incidents recorded in Camden, 22 in Westminster and 15 each in Redbridge and Harrow. There were 28 antisemitic incidents recorded in Hackney and 14 in Haringey, the two boroughs that cover the strictly Orthodox Jewish community of Stamford Hill. In Greater Manchester, 86 per cent of the 169 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the three Metropolitan Boroughs of Salford (63 incidents), Bury (47 incidents) and Manchester (35 incidents). Outside Greater London and Greater Manchester, CST received reports of 157 antisemitic incidents from 63 locations around the United Kingdom in 2012, compared to 149 incidents from 55 different locations in 2011. There were 27 antisemitic incidents in Hertfordshire, the same as in 2011; 16 in Leeds, compared to 15 in 2011; 11 in Birmingham, compared to 4 in 2011; 7 in Liverpool (13 in 2011); and 7 in Glasgow (11 in 2011). Sometimes, what may appear to be a dramatic change in the number of antisemitic incidents reported in a particular location, such as the increase in Birmingham from 4 reported incidents to 11, is the result of a reporting drive held by CST amongst the local Jewish community or the recruitment of new volunteers to help CSTs work in the area. Going by Police region rather than specific locations, and in addition to the figures already given for London, Manchester and Hertfordshire, CST recorded 21 antisemitic incidents in West Yorkshire, 11 in the West Midlands region, 9 in Strathclyde, 9 in Northumbria, 8 in Merseyside and 6 in Essex. Eleven antisemitic incidents were recorded as having an unknown location, usually because they took place on social media and it was not possible to attach the incident to a particular geographical location.
Geographical incident categories
London Manchester
237
123
31
24
23
10
19
11
Abusive Behaviour
Assault
Damage and Desecration
Threats
Literature
Extreme Violence
Further differences between incident types in Greater London and Greater Manchester can be drawn out of the statistics. Taken broadly, and allowing for very rough generalisations, these show that antisemitic incidents in Greater Manchester are more likely to involve random street racism what might be called antisemitic hooliganism against individual Jews, while ideologically motivated antisemitism which normally takes the form of hate mail, abusive phone calls or antisemitic graffiti tends to be concentrated in Greater London where most of the Jewish communitys leadership bodies and public figures are based. So, 63 per cent of antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in Greater Manchester targeted individual Jews in public, compared to 44 per cent of the incidents recorded in Greater London; whereas 10 per cent of incidents recorded in Greater London targeted Jewish organisations, events or communal leaders, compared to just 4 per cent of incidents in Greater Manchester. Thirty per cent of antisemitic incidents in Greater London showed evidence of far right, anti-Zionist or Islamist beliefs or motivation alongside the antisemitism, compared to just 17 per cent of those recorded in Greater Manchester. Incidents in Greater London are more likely to involve hate mail, abusive emails or online antisemitism: there were 63 such incidents in Greater London in
2012 (20 per cent of incidents in Greater London), compared to just 16 in Greater Manchester (9 per cent of incidents in Greater Manchester). While 60 per cent of antisemitic incident offenders in Greater Manchester in 2012 were described as White North European (for those incidents where a description was provided to CST), that figure fell to 40 per cent in Greater London, probably reflecting the greater diversity in the capitals population. This relative diversity in the capital may also explain why antisemitic incident totals in Greater London are more sensitive to external trigger events than those in Greater Manchester. While Greater London had its highest monthly total of 2012 in November, when the trigger event of the fighting in Gaza and southern Israel took place, that month saw Greater Manchester record its third-lowest monthly incident total of the year. The response to trigger events is not always easy to predict. The second-highest monthly total recorded in Greater Manchester during the year was in March, when the trigger event of the Toulouse terrorist shooting saw an increase in the reporting of antisemitic incidents across the country; but in July, when Manchester itself hosted the trial of a local couple convicted of plotting a terrorist attack against the Manchester Jewish community, there was no discernible spike in antisemitic incident reporting in the city.
23
24
Typology of incidents: mission, opportunistic or aggravated?

A study of antisemitic incidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service from 2001 to 20046 defined mission incidents as those in which the offender takes some premeditated action to instigate the incident by engineering their interaction with the victim. In addition, antisemitism seemingly drives the offenders actions as manifest by their language or symbols they use (Iganski, Keilinger & Paterson, 2005). Applying this definition to the 640 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2012 reveals that 342 incidents, or 53 per cent of the total, showed evidence of being mission incidents. This does not mean that, in every case, the offender left their house intending to find a Jewish person or building to attack, although this did happen in several cases. Rather, it relates to incident offenders who, in the moments preceding an antisemitic incident, take some action to make contact with a person, organisation or property they believe to be Jewish, in order to express their bigotry. Examples of mission incidents recorded in 2012 include: for directions. When he did so, one of them shouted Heil Hitler and said, Do you know what a bath plug is youve got one on your head. visible. Examples of these mission-indiscriminate incidents include: matter was settled via a Restorative Justice process.
Manchester, March: Three white men with

shaved heads and foreign accents were seen walking through a neighbourhood with a large visibly Jewish population, shouting Heil Hitler, making Nazi salutes and goose-stepping.
London, April: A Jewish woman was on a

training course to work in a supermarket, when the woman giving the course said that Jewish customers are all nasty and made offensive comments about the kosher section.
Manchester, October: Two women and one

man approached a Jewish man and asked, Whats your name? Are you Jewish? You f**king Jew. Oh you f**king Jews, kill you all! The 342 mission incidents recorded by CST in 2012 can be further broken down by type of incident. The five examples given above are all what can be referred to as mission-direct, which involves direct, face-to-face contact between offender and victim. Other incidents, which do not involve this face-to-face contact, can be classified as mission-indirect, of which these are examples:
London, July: Antisemitic graffiti was found

in a public toilet, which read, Rothschilds Warning! Olympic games is a sacrificial stage set! 2012 logo reads Zion Zionists behind 9/11 and 7/7. ITS WAKE UP TIME!
E ssex, June: A council worker was in a tenants

home when the wife, not realising he was Jewish, remarked that those Jews are dirty, they are like Arabs, they pull you into their shops and they are all nasty people. By comparison, 137 incidents, or 21 per cent of the 640 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2012, appeared to be opportunistic, whereby the offender takes immediate advantage of an opportunity that presents itself to vent their antisemitism, rather than engineering the incident in a premeditated way (Iganski, Keilinger & Paterson, 2005). Examples of opportunistic incidents from 2012 include:
Newcastle, August: A Newcastle United

supporter was seen making antisemitic gestures, including Nazi salutes and pretending to turn on gas taps, towards Tottenham Hotspur supporters during a Premier League match between the two clubs. He was arrested and given a Police caution and a three-match ban from the stadium.
Manchester, February: Four pork chops were

left on the bonnet of a Jewish-owned car.
London, April: An Israeli organisation was

sent a lengthy printout from a website alleging Jewish world control, with a covering letter headed Protest against restriction of freedom of speech by Jews.
Hertfordshire, February: As a van containing

three white men drove past a synagogue, the driver beeped his horn to get the attention of the synagogues security guard, and one of the occupants shouted something and gave a Nazi salute.
London, November: A user on Twitter tweeted:

F**k it for palestine sake, Im going stamford hill for some drive-bys tonight. Stamford Hill is an area of north London with a large visibly Jewish community. The final type of mission incident that made up the 342 incidents of this type in 2012 were mission-inadvertent, whereby the offenders expression of antisemitism is inadvertently overheard or seen by somebody who the offender did not intend to directly abuse. Examples of this from 2012 include:
Darlington, January: A visibly Jewish truck

driver was making a delivery and the security guard at the location refused to open the gate, saying, We dont serve Jews here. After some time the guard tried to apologise for his comments, saying that it was because he disagreed with what was happening in the Middle East. The guard pleaded guilty to racial/religious harassment and using threatening words and behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress. He received a conditional discharge and paid 100 in compensation.
London, September: A Jewish woman found

that somebody was trying to connect to her via Bluetooth using the name of Y*dbasher.
Hertfordshire, May: A teenage Jewish girl was

approached by another girl who said, Hitler should have gassed you all and then hit the Jewish girl.
London, November: The website of a UK

Jewish charity was hacked into and Israel is a war criminal with a blood-spattering image was left on its home page.
London, June: A visibly Jewish man was

walking home from synagogue when a black woman approached him and shouted, You should be following Christ. Take that thing off your head or I will! She then called the man a murderer and a rapist.
6. Iganski et al., Hate Crimes against Londons Jews (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, London 2005).
Birmingham, December: A synagogue

received a phone call in which the caller said, I would like to talk about Israel, I dont like Israel, I dont like f**king Jews, I hope you all die, we Muslims are going to kill you. Other mission incidents do not target a specific victim, but rather take place in a public area where the victims can be any members of the public who happen to pass by or on social media where the offending comments are publicly
Manchester, February: A Jewish man was

emailing a long-term business contact and asked him for the price of an item. The offender responded with an email saying Typical hard faced Jewish b*****d. When the victim challenged this, the offender apologised and explained that the email had not been meant for the victim to see. The victim reported the email to the Police and the
Manchester, February: Three visibly Jewish

men were at a petrol station when three men in a small car saw them, and one of the offenders shouted, Jew boys, Im gonna get my boys down.
London, August: A visibly Jewish man was

walking through an area with a large Jewish population, when a car pulled up alongside him and the two white male occupants motioned to him to come over, as if to ask
London, March: A group of visibly Jewish

people attended a comedy club where they sat in the front row. The compre mocked them
25
26
Antisemitic or anti-Israel?
for being Jewish, including saying There are Jews in the room and Which Jew is married to which Jew? and taking the mens kippot off their heads.
Bradford, June: Two people sharing a train

carriage got into an argument over whether to open a window. At one point the offender started to get abusive and, thinking that the other person was Jewish, said, You Jews need to be got rid of. Why dont you go back to Israel, go back to Israel where you belong.
Manchester, May: A visibly Jewish man was

shopping with his young children when a group of white male youths saw them and shouted Hitler while doing Nazi salutes.
Manchester, July: Two men entered an offlicence and were heard to say to each other that they were going to rob the tills. When the owner, who was not Jewish, told them to leave, they shouted, Are you a Jew? You look like a Jew. It looks like these people are darkies and then threatened to smash up the shop and to beat up the owner.
London, October: A Jewish man was on his way

home from a Premier League match between Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea. Some Chelsea fans on the same train as him started to direct antisemitic abuse towards him, including hissing to imitate a gas chamber. When he took a photograph of the offenders, they grabbed him and threatened to beat him up if he didnt delete it. Seventy-one incidents, or 11 per cent of the overall total of 640 incidents, were what may be categorised as aggravated incidents, whereby the offender and victim are caught up in a conflict situation that initially does not involve antisemitism. However, in the course of the conflict the offenders bigotry emerges (Iganski et al., 2005). Examples of aggravated incidents recorded by CST in 2012 include:
CST is often asked about the difference between antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel activity, and how this distinction is made in the categorisation of incidents. The distinction between the two can be subtle and the subject of much debate. Clearly, it would not be acceptable to define all anti-Israel activity as antisemitic; but it cannot be ignored that contemporary antisemitism can occur in the context of, or be accompanied by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine issue, or that discourse relating to the Israel/Palestine issue is used by offenders to abuse Jews. Drawing out these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie, is one of the most difficult areas of CSTs work in recording and analysing hate crime. CST received reports of 547 potential incidents during 2012 that, after investigation, did not appear to be antisemitic and were therefore not included in the total of 640 antisemitic incidents. These 547 potential incidents included examples of anti-Israel activity directed at organisations involved in pro-Israel work, which did not involve antisemitic language or imagery, and were therefore not classified by CST as antisemitic. Examples of antiIsrael incidents during 2012 that were not recorded by CST as antisemitic include the following:
Hertfordshire, September: A family were

walking to synagogue on a Jewish festival when two Irish men who were pushing a car asked for help. When the father of the family answered that he could not help, the men became angry and said Hitler should have killed you as well as other antisemitic abuse.
Sometimes the targeting of a particular incident can suggest an intention to intimidate or offend Jews on the part of the offender. For example, graffiti reading F**k Israel would probably be classified as an antisemitic incident if it appears to be targeted at an area known for having a large Jewish community, but would probably not be counted as antisemitic if it appears in an area where few Jews live. Similarly, anti-Israel material that is sent unsolicited to a synagogue at random may be recorded as an antisemitic incident (because it fails to distinguish between a place of worship and a political organisation), when the same material sent unsolicited to specifically pro-Israel organisations would not be. On the other hand, if a particular synagogue has been involved in public pro-Israel advocacy, and subsequently is sent anti-Israel material, it may not be classified as antisemitic unless the content of the material dictates otherwise. The political discourse used in an incident may also be the reason why the incident is accepted or rejected as antisemitic. Incidents that equate Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic, whereas those that compare Israel to, for instance, apartheid South Africa, normally would not be. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. Irrespective of whether or not these incidents are classified as antisemitic by CST, they are still relevant to CSTs security work as they often involve threats and abuse directed at Jewish people or organisations who work with, or in support of, Israel, and therefore have an impact on the security of the UK Jewish community.
London, March: An organisation involved in

pro-Israel advocacy received abusive voicemail messages that included Free Palestine and Zionist motherf**kers.
London, February: A Jewish man was boarding

a train and accidentally tripped over a mans legs while going to an empty seat. The man muttered f**king Jews, f**king Y*ds.
Manchester, September: An organisation

involved in pro-Israel advocacy received a threatening phone call in which a female caller said that Israel was responsible for the killing of innocent men, women and children and that you will be sorry.
London, March: A Jewish man was driving

down a narrow road when his way was blocked by a van coming the other way. After a short stand-off, the Jewish man reversed, and as the van drove past, its driver, a white man, shouted, Hitler should have finished the job with you f**kers.
Manchester, November: Free Gaza was

daubed on the wall of a pub in an area of Manchester not known for having a large Jewish population.
27
Antisemitic and racist graffiti in Brighton and Hove, May 2012

Graffiti in Dorset, September 2012
28
Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour

One of the most important jobs CST does is to record and analyse incidents of Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour around Jewish locations. It is well known that terrorist groups often collect information about their targets before launching an attack. Identifying and preventing the gathering of this kind of information is an integral part of CSTs work in protecting the UK Jewish community from the danger of terrorism. Jewish communities have long been the targets of terrorists of different and varied political and religious motivations. Since the late 1960s, there have been over 400 terrorist attacks, attempted attacks and foiled terrorist plots against Diaspora Jewish communities and Israeli targets outside Israel.7 In 2012, three different terrorist plots targeting Jewish communities in the United Kingdom came to trial or were publicised via the media. The most serious of these involved a local couple in Manchester, Mohammed and Shasta Khan, who had conducted surveillance of the Manchester Jewish community as part of their preparations for a terrorist attack in the city for which they are now serving prison sentences. Outside the UK, Jewish communities in France, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia and India have all been attacked by Al-Qaeda and its supporters, while plots to attack Jewish communities in Germany, Australia and the United States have been foiled by Police action. In addition to this threat from violent jihadist terrorism, there is growing evidence of efforts by British neo-Nazis to plan and execute terrorist attacks against minorities here in Britain, including against the Jewish community. Cases of Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour are not included in the antisemitic incident statistics, as the motivation for many of them is not possible to determine. The vague and uncertain nature of many of these incidents means that they are easier to analyse if the two categories are combined, rather than treated separately. Taken together, there were 204 such incidents reported to CST in 2012, compared to 158 in 2011 and 147 in 2010. Of the 204 incidents of Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour reported to CST in 2012, 60 involved the photography or videoing of Jewish buildings, while in 38 cases suspicious people tried to gain entry to Jewish premises. Many of these incidents are likely to have innocent explanations and it is often not possible to determine their motivation. However, neither CST nor the Police underestimate the threat posed to Jewish communities by various terrorist organisations and networks. Identifying and preventing the potential hostile reconnaissance of Jewish buildings or other potential terrorist targets is an important part of reducing the possibility of future terrorist attacks.
Antisemitic incident figures by category, 20022012

Category Extreme violence Assault Damage and desecration Threats Abusive behaviour Literature TOTAL 2002 5 42 55 18 216 14 350 2003 0 54 72 22 211 16 375 2004 4 79 53 93 272 31 532 2005 2 79 48 25 278 27 459 2006 4 110 70 28 366 20 598 2007 1 116 65 24 336 19 561 2008 1 87 76 28 317 37 546 2009 3 121 89 45 609 62 929 2010 0 114 83 32 391 25 645 2011 2 93 64 30 412 7 608 2012 2 67 53 39 467 12 640
Antisemitic incident figures by month, 20022012

Month January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL 2002 15 11 26 47 47 26 31 15 47 45 28 12 350 2003 23 24 48 29 27 34 30 20 22 57 36 25 375 2004 20 28 100 62 39 64 48 29 60 29 29 24 532 2005 60 45 39 49 39 38 40 32 30 45 22 20 459 2006 34 56 40 33 44 37 94 78 67 59 36 20 598 2007 33 40 36 59 36 42 60 49 81 55 37 35 561 2008 44 52 40 39 62 40 52 20 47 58 45 47 546 2009 288 114 73 52 52 49 46 40 86 45 54 30 929 2010 30 48 54 61 50 82 63 47 82 52 48 28 645 2011 45 54 49 45 58 43 43 37 73 52 53 56 608 2012 39 52 75 48 44 53 58 41 59 60 82 29 640
Antisemitic incident figures, full breakdown, 2012

Category January February March April May June July August September October November December CATEGORY TOTAL Extreme violence 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Assault 4 6 4 4 9 7 9 4 2 9 6 3 67 Damage and desecration 2 5 6 8 3 5 4 1 5 3 7 4 53 Threats 1 3 9 2 0 5 2 1 3 4 8 1 39 Abusive behaviour 32 37 55 31 31 36 40 34 48 44 60 19 467 Literature 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 12 MONTH TOTAL 39 52 75 48 44 53 58 41 59 60 82 29 640
7. For a full chronology and analysis of this history of modern anti-Jewish terrorism, see the CST publication Terrorist Incidents against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad 19682010, available at www.thecst.org.uk
Incidents of Information Collection and Suspicious Behaviour, 20082012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
137 200 147 158 204
Some of the numbers in the tables may differ from those previously published by CST, due to the late reporting of inicdents to CST by incident victims and witnesses, or the recategorisation of some incidents due to new information. CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012 30
29
www.thecst.org.uk
CST_UK Community Security Trust
London (Head Office) 020 8457 9999

Emergency 24-hour pager 07659 101 668
Manchester (Northern Regional Office) 0161 792 6666

Emergency 24-hour number 0800 980 0668
Published by Community Security Trust. Registered charity in England and Wales (1042391) and Scotland (SC042391).

Incidents Report 2012 CST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Incidents Report 2012 CST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antisemitic incidents

Introduction Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2012

Damage and Desecration to Jewish Property Threats Abusive Behaviour Literature

Discourse and motives Geographical locations and differences

Typology of incidents: mission, opportunistic or aggravated? Antisemitic or anti-Israel?

Information collection and suspicious behaviour Annual incident figures

Annual incident figures by category,

Incident victims Incident offenders

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

Antisemitic incidents and the Jewish population

There were 69 violent antisemitic assaults

The 640 antisemitic incidents recorded by

The 69 violent antisemitic incidents included

Manchester Jewish population

The two highest monthly totals during 2012

The number of antisemitic incidents recorded

Violent antisemitic assaults made up

Hertfordshire Jewish population

In Greater Manchester, where an incident

CST recorded 80 antisemitic incidents that

Incidents of Damage and Desecration to

London Jewish population

There were 467 incidents of Abusive Behaviour

161 of the 640 antisemitic incidents

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

In 32 antisemitic incidents, the victims were

There is no clear correlation between the

There were 39 incidents reported to CST in

In addition to the 640 antisemitic incidents

55 incidents targeted Jewish schools,

There were 12 incidents recorded in the

In total, there were 1,187 incidents, including

The 547 potential incidents reported to CST

The most common single type of incident in

There were 196 antisemitic incidents which

43 antisemitic incidents targeted synagogues,

CST received a physical description of the

Incidents reported to CST in 2012

In 46 incidents, the victims were Jewish

54 per cent of these reports were deemed antisemitic by CST.

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

Antisemitic incident totals, 20082012

Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2012

Contexts and patterns

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

546 929 645 608 640

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

Northern Ireland, March: A Jewish schoolboy

Glasgow, May: A visibly Jewish couple in

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

CST Antisemitic Incidents Report 2012

Damage and Desecration to Jewish Property

Hertfordshire, July: A rabbi was on his way

Manchester, April: A Jewish man was

London, August: A rabbi and a few other

Merseyside, April: Swastikas were scratched

London, March: A visibly Jewish man was

Lancashire, May: A swastika was spray-painted

Birmingham, October: A group of Jewish

London, June: The website of a Jewish charity

Manchester, May: A Jewish woman was